Randhir Singh and Others v. Union of India and Another

1. The present appeal is filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to challenge the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2023 passed in LAC LA.APP 265/2024 Page 2 bearing no. 19/2016 titled as Randhir Singh & others V Union of India & another, (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) by the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, ADJ-1 + MACT, North West District, Rohini Courts Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the reference court”).

2. The factual background of the case as reflected from impugned judgment is that Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi vide notification bearing No. F.11(1)/L&B/LA/3831 dated 04.06.2004 issued under section 4 of the Act intended to acquire about 72 bigha 01 biswa of land with specification mentioned in the notification for public purpose namely “Rohini Residential Scheme” under the “Planned Development of Delhi”. Thereafter, vide Declaration/Notification no. F.11 (1)/L&B/LA/2626 dated 03.06.2005 issued under section 6 of the Act, 72 bigha 01 biswa land (as detailed in the statement under Section 19 of the Act) situated in the revenue estate of village Pooth Kalan, Delhi was acquired by the Government. Land Acquisition Collector(NW) ( hereinafter referred to as “LAC”) after completing the requisite formalities as provided under the Act announced the Award bearing no.04/2006-07 dated 20.10.2006 under section 11 of LA.APP 265/2024 Page 3 the Act in respect of 72bigha 01biswa out of the aforesaid acquired land and awarded a compensation at the uniform rate of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre (or Rs. 3,27,083.33/- per bigha) for the entire acquired land in addition to other statutory benefits and interests. 2.1The appellants were co-owners/co-bhoomidhars of agricultural land comprised in Khasra no. 27//16 Min (4-10), 17(4-16), 18(4- 16),1//7/1 (0-05), 13//21 Min (3-00) and 22 min (4-00) total area admeasuring 21 bigha and 07 biswa situated in the revenue estate of Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi which was acquired vide Award NO. 04/2006-07/DC(NW) dated 20.10.2006. 2.[2] The petitioner in reference petition under section 18 of the Act challenged the Award on the grounds which are as under:i. The Award was announced by ignoring the objections of the appellants under Section 5A of the Act stating that the land in question isa built-up consisting of 40 rooms and that there is a boundary wallaround the land in question alongwith many trees on said land. The award is completely silent regarding the built-up structures.The land in question has not been properly valued for compensation amount to be paid to the appellantsby LAC. The compensation awarded by the LAC is highly inadequate as per the prevailing market price. ii. LAC has failed to consider that the land of the appellantsis situated in the middle of fully developed residential colony namelyRohini Residential Scheme LA.APP 265/2024 Page 4 developed by DDA. The acquired land of the appellants falls in sector-23 of residential scheme and is situated near the 40 meters wide main road and also leads to NH-1. The Secior-23 is duly developed. The DDA has auctioned the land in the year 2002-03 @ Rs. 10,000/- per sq.yards approximately. LAC has failed to assess the true and correct market value of the land in question. iii) LAC has assessed the market value of the land by treating the as agricultural land and the market value has been assessed in terms of administrative instructions/ circular whereas the land of the appellants was not agricultural land in any manner asthe land was fully surrounded by developed land and had all the potentialities of being used for residential/ commercial purposes. iv. The market value of the land is not less than Rs. 5 crores per acre on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act and has been notified for RohiniResidential Scheme, Phase-III under Planned Development of Delhi. The land has commercial use and value. v. DDAhas allotted flats, residential plots, commercial sites which were developed by the DDA contractors and sold by the DDA at very high prices. The land of the appellants is situated near to the commercial sites, flats and residential plots. The land has fullpotential value and can be used for any purpose as desired byDDA. vi. The appellants prayed for grant of compensation at rate of Rs. 10,000/- per sq. meter in respect of acquired land, Rs. 1,00,000/- per room in respect of the built up area and @ Rs. 10,00,000/- in respect of the 25 trees on the acquired land of the appellants as per the prevailing market price of the acquired land along with other statutory benefits including interest, solatium etc. inaccordance with law. LA.APP 265/2024 Page 5

3. The respondent no 1/Union of India filed written statement before the reference court. The respondent no 1 stated that the notification under section 4 was issued on 04.06.2004 and the declaration under section 6 of the Act was issued on 03.06.2005 and the land was acquired for the public purposes i.e. for “Rohini Residential Scheme Phase II under Planned Development of Delhi”. LAC has rightly assessed the market value of land keeping in view all the aspects and has assessed the market value after considering the level of development, locality and situation of the area where the said land is situated. LAC has assessed the fair market value of the land by adopting the indicative price fixed by the Government of NCT of Delhi at the rate of Rs. 15,70,000 per acre for the year 2001- 2002 which is applicable with effect from 01.04.2001 for land falling in Block A. LAC has rightly assessed the market value of the land keeping in view the aspects enumerated under sections 23 and 24 of the Act. The reference petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. The respondent no 2/DDA did not file written statement and right to file written statement was ordered to be closed vide order dated 04.08.2014. LA.APP 265/2024 Page 6

4. The reference court on basis of pleadings framed following issues vide order dated 04.08.2014:i. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement in compensation, if yes, then to what extent? OPP. ii. Relief.

5. The appellants before reference court examined Surender Singh as PW[1] who tendered affidavit Ex. PW1/A in evidence. PW[1] relied ondocuments which are photocopies of Award bearing no. 20/85-86 dated 11.11.1985 and Award no. 245/86-87 as Mark A, RTI applications filed before DDA, LAC and MCD as Mark B, Demandcum-Allotment letters dated 04.07.2003, 23.10.2003 and document showing the list of auctions conducted by the DDA in Rohini Residential Scheme as Mark C, Award No. 5/2003-04 of Village Mangol Pur Khurd, Delhi as Mark D, Valuation report of immovable property bearing Khasra no.27/2/20 (3-12) of village Mangol Pur Kalan, Delhi as Mark E, certified copy of sale deed bearing registration no. 11424 dated 08.08.2003 as Ex. PW1/2(colly), RTI application dated 08.06.2011 seeking information from DDA regarding Pawan Hans Helicopter Ltd. and other related documents as Mark F and Map of Budh Vihar Phase-I as Mark G. The appellants LA.APP 265/2024 Page 7 also examined Manjeet Singh, Field Kanoongo, from the office of SDM, Rohini as PW[2] who brought copy of Khatoni for the year 1977-1978 and copy of Aks-Sizra of Village Pooth Kalan as Ex. PW 2/1 (OSR) and Ex. PW 2/2 (OSR) respectively; Shiv Shankar, Data Operator, I.AC, N/W at DC Office, Kanjhawala, Delhi as PW[3] who brought Award no. 20/1985-1986 dated 11.11.1985 regarding village Pooth Kalan as Ex. PW 3/1 (OSR), Award No. 245/1986-1987 of Village Pooth Kalan Ex. PW 3/2 (OSR) and Award no. 5/2003-2004, Village Mangolpur Khurd Ex. PW 3/3 (OSR); Anil Kumar Sharma, Assistant Section Officer, LAB Residential DDA, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi as PW[4] who brought letter bearing no. F-11(7)/1989/LSB (r)/6224 dated 04.07.2003 Ex. PW 4/1 (OSR);Vivek Yadav, LDC from Office of Sub-Registrar- II, Basai Dara Pur, Delhi as PW[5] who brought sale deed dated 21.09.2000 and sale deed dated 08.08.2003, the certified copy which are Ex. PW 1/2 (OSR)(Colly); K. L. Jagoree, Assistant Section Officer, Department Commercial Land Branch, DDA, Vikas Sadan as PW[6] who brought Allotment Letter Ex. PW6/1 regarding auction of commercial plots, perpetual lease deed, advertisement, possession letter, site possession and other LA.APP 265/2024 Page 8 relevant documents as Ex. PW 6/2; Govind Kumar Sharma, Assistant Section Officer, JA Branch, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi as PW[7] who brought complete record Ex. PW7/1(colly) for allotment of land to Ministry of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India for construction of Heliport, at Sector-36, Rohini on land measuring area 25 acres and Raj Pal, Assistant Director, Planning, Rohini, Office of Planning, Rohini at Madhuban chowk, Delhi as PW[8] who brought composite layout plan of sector -20 to 25, Rohini, Delhi which is Ex. PW8/1. 5.1The respondent no 1/UOI examined Sarita Aggarwal, Advocate as RW[1] who tendered Award bearing no. 04/2006-2007, Village Pooth Kalan as Ex. RI.

6. The reference court in impugned judgment considered sale deed Ex. PW1/2 relied on by the appellants pertaining to land situated in village Hiran Kundna in the proximity of the village Pooth Kalan and argument advanced by the counsel of the respondent no 1/UOI that sale deed Ex. PW 1/2 cannot be relied upon to determine the price of acquired land because the Village Hiran Kundna is located at the distance of 6-7 km from Village Pooth Kalan and the sale deed relied upon by the appellants did not reflect true and correct value and LA.APP 265/2024 Page 9 thereafter observed that sale deed dated 20.08.2000 Ex. PW 1/2 pertaining to village Hiran Kudna cannot be considered for assessing the fair market value of the land of the appellant as sale deed Ex. PW1/2 was executed much prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act and the land mentioned in the sale deed is not in proximity of the acquired land as situated at distance of more than 07 km. The reference court also relied on Viluben Jhalejar Contractor V State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 wherein principles were laid down for determination of market value of land. 6.1The reference court in impugned judgment also considered arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that the market value of the said land should be assessed on the basis of allotment made by DDA in the adjoining area and the appellants relied on the allotment letter dated 04.07.2003 Ex. PW 4/1, allotment letter Ex. PW 6/1, perpetual lease deed Ex. PW 6/2 issued by DDA for allotment of residential plot in the residential/commercial area of Rohini. The appellants also relied upon Award no. 20/1985-86 pertaining to Village Pooth Kalan Ex. PW 3/1; Award no. 245/1986-1987, Village Pooth Kalan Ex. PW 3/2 and Award no. 5/2003-2004, Village LA.APP 265/2024 Page 10 Mangolpur Khurd Ex.PW 3/3 to prove that the surrounding land of the acquired land had already been acquired way back and developed by the DDA in Sector 20 to 24, Rohini Residential Scheme. It was further argued on behalf of the appellants that acquired land is surrounded with the developed area and the land of the appellants is fit for development and only the cost of development would be deducted from the said land allotted by the respondent no 2/DDA at the time of the notification under section 4 of the Act. The appellants also argued that the land of the appellants has great potentiality as there are so many unauthorized colonies existing upon the agricultural land of the same village which proves the potentiality of the land in question. The reference court also considered arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent no 1/UOI that allotment letter issued by the respondent no 2/DDA are either instances of allotment or creation of perpetual lease by the government for specific purpose and hence cannot be compared with the instances of sale of an undervalued agricultural land acquired for public purpose which requires lot of development and incurring of very high development charges. The reference court observed that documents relied on by LA.APP 265/2024 Page 11 the appellants are either instances of allotment or creation of a perpetual lease deed by the government for specific purposes and cannot be compared with the instances of sale of an under developed agricultural land acquired for public purpose which requires lot of development and incurring of very high development charges. The reference court further observed that allotment or creation of freehold right cannot be treated as an instance of absolute sale and as such cannot be compared to market value of the land in case of agricultural land acquisition by the government. The reference court after relying on Lal Chand V UOI & another, (2009) 15 SCC 769 has rejected arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants and held that ratio laid down by the Supreme Court is clear and rejected the rates fixed by DDA. It was also observed that it is not safe to rely upon these rates for determination of market value of subject agricultural land acquired vide notification dated 04.06.2004. 6.[2] The reference court also considered reliance placed by the appellants on Award no. 5/2003-2004 pertaining to Village Mangolpur Khurd Ex. PW 3/3 for determination of fair market value of the acquired land and arguments that the Village Mangolpur LA.APP 265/2024 Page 12 Khurd touches the boundary of land of the appellants and Village Mangolpur Khurd was declared urbanized in the year 1982. LAC vide Award no. 05/2003-2004, Village Mangolpur Khurd fixed the market value of said village prior to acquisition of land of the appellants and made observations that scheduled rate for the year 2000 was Rs. 3488/- per sq. yard for Rohini as per rates issued by Urban Affairs and Development Ministry, Government of India. The reference court observed that observations made by LAC in Award no. 05/2003-2004, Village Mangolpur Khurd Ex. PW 3/3 with regard to the fair market value of the land of the said village are not relevant to the present case because vide Award Ex PW 3/3, the land measuring 02 bigha and 03 biswa was only acquired for specific public purpose i.e. construction of 112 LIG houses in Pocket-A, Sector II, Rohini, Phase-I, Delhi. The reference court further observed that the area of the acquired land i.e. 41 bigha 13 biswa in present case is much larger than the area of the land acquired vide Award no. 05/2003-2004, village Mangolpur Khurd and the purpose for acquisition of land vide Award No. 04/2006-2007 Ex. R[1] was Rohini Residential Scheme, phase-I under Planned Development of LA.APP 265/2024 Page 13 Delhi and not to construct flats as mentioned in Award No. 05/2003- 2004 Village Mangolpur Khurd. The reference court also referred cross examination of PW[1] wherein he admitted that the 112 flats are situated at the distance of 2 ½ km from the acquired land in question. The reference court also considered reliance placed on Award NO. 245/86-87 Village Pooth Kalan Ex. PW 3/2 by the appellants whereby land measuring 849 bigha and 9 biswa was acquired for the purpose of supplementary drain. The reference court observed that part land of the appellants bearing Khasra No. 11/7/1 and 11/7/2 was also acquired vide said Award in the year 1986 and 1987 for the purpose of construction of supplementary drain and not for construction of any residential or commercial plot and any land near the drain has lesser market value than any other suitable land situated in the same village. The reference court held that the appellants cannot take any benefit on the ground that part of their land was acquired for planned development of Delhi. The reference court further observed that acquired land of the appellants was agricultural land as PW[1] in cross-examination also admitted that no crop was being cultivated on the acquired land for last number of years prior to LA.APP 265/2024 Page 14 the acquisition and he did not take any step to develop the acquired land and there was no evidence that the acquired land was converted into residential/commercial land till the date of acquisition. The reference court held that the market value of the acquired land of the appellants cannot be determined on the basis of the rates redetermined by LAC vide award No. 05/2003-2004 of Village Mangolpur Khurd Ex.PW3/3. 6.[3] The reference court while determining compensation of acquired land primarily placed reliance on Indicative Price Policy announced by the government. The reference court considered reliance placed by the respondents on Indicative Price Policy issued by the Government. The respondents before reference court contented that indicative prices for the acquired agricultural land has been fixed by the Government and revised from time to time after consideration of all the factors by an expert committee and thereby giving a realistic and well examined amount of Rs.15,70,000/- per acre for the acquired agricultural land within the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The reference court also considered contention of the respondent that the report itself suggests that such revision in prices should be periodic LA.APP 265/2024 Page 15 and be done in an interval of 3 years and further contention that having announced the minimum indicative prices on 09.08.2001 which was effective from 01.04.2001, the next revision shall take place only in the year 2004 and that to be effective from 01.04.2004 and therefore, the notification of the government acquiring agricultural land between the period should be covered by the indicative prices fixed by the government in 2001 only and no enhancement even by percentage annual increase can be accorded to the land owners including the appellants. The reference court referred objective behind fixing of Minimum Indicative Price and observed that Minimum Indicative Price announced by the Land & Building Department of Delhi Administration (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) are in the form of letters issued by the Department thereby fixing the minimum price/rates of agricultural land for acquisition of land acquired for public purpose under the Act within the Union Territory (National Capital Territory of Delhi) with the objective of countering the variable prices of acquired land announced by LAC mainly on the basis of exemplar sale deeds and sometime under valuation of the land for the purpose of registration of Sale Deed which leads to LA.APP 265/2024 Page 16 insufficient compensation much below the market price leading to resistance of acquisition resulting into non-availability of land available through regular channel. The Minimum Indicative Price categorized the land in two Categories i.e., land situated in river bed between the forward bunds and all other agricultural lands. The reference court also considered that LAC has not considered the annual escalation factor for the period between the indicative price policy which was effective from 01.04.2001 and the date of notification under section 4 of the Act and observed that non consideration of escalation for the period with effect from 01.04.2001 to date of notification under section 4 of the Act, the market value assessed by LAC cannot be considered appropriate and the market value so announced in the Award cannot be called as fair market value. The reference court after following decision given by this court in Jai Singh V UOI, 135 (2006) DLT 231 (DB) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 675 of 2012 titled as Union of India V Jai Singh increased price of the acquired landat the rate of 11.5% per annum (cumulatively) on minimum indicative price of Rs15,70,000 per acre and assessed fair market LA.APP 265/2024 Page 17 value at Rs. 22,20,897.52/- (round of Rs. 22,20,900/-) per acre thereby gave enhancement of Rs. 6,50,900/- per acre besides awarding other statutory benefits. The reference court while answering reference petition under section 18 of the Act awarded following reliefs to the appellants:- (1) Fair Market value of land of petitioner @ Rs. 22,20,900/- per acre. An enhancement of Rs. 6,50,900/- per acre is accordingly accorded. (2) Additional amount (@ 12% (in terms of Section 23 (1A) of the Act). (3) Solatium @ 30% on the enhanced compensation (in terms of S.23 (2) of the Act). (4) Interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year till the payment of enhanced compensation by LAC is made (in terms of Section 28 of the Act).

7. The appellants being aggrieved filed the present appeal and challenged impugned judgment on grounds that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law and facts and is based on surmises and conjectures. The reference court did not consider potentiality of acquired land on the basis of development in the surroundings as there were no instances of sale which are the best method for assessment of the market value of the acquired land. The reference court did not appreciate the evidence of PW[2] which proved that the LA.APP 265/2024 Page 18 acquired land was no more agricultural land but was urbanized land on the date of notification under section 4 of the Act although in revenue records continued to be rural land and lands surrounding the acquired land has already been acquired. The nomenclature of the land whether it is mention as agriculture, semi urban or urban in the revenue record does not make any difference as it is the potentiality which has to be considered. The reference court has not considered case law cited on behalf of the appellants. The reference court wrongly discarded the duly proved status of the acquired land as semiurban land. The reference court has awarded inadequate compensation. The appellants are legally entitled for the compensation for the acquired land at rate of Rs.5967/- per square meter thereby granting an enhancement in compensation to the appellants for a sum of Rs.3,61,63,987/- over and above the compensation amount awarded vide the impugned judgment and decree from the date of notification of acquisition of the land besides all statutory benefits. The appellants made the following prayer:- It is therefore, in view of the above circumstances and in the interest of justice most humbly prayed to this Hon'ble Court that the present appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment & decree dated 21.11.2023 LA.APP 265/2024 Page 19 corrected/modified vide order dated 01.06.2024 to the extent of memo of parties, may kindly be modified by further compensation for the acquired land in question for a sum of Rs.3,61,65,987/- ( Rupees Three Crores Sixty One lacs Sixty Five Thousand Nine hundred Eighty Seven Only) being @ Rs.5967/- per square meter, besides other statutory benefits on the same, including interest on solatium and the appellant may further be awarded the cost of appeal. Any other or further orders, which are deem fit and proper by Hon’ble Court may also be passed.

8. Sh. Rajesh Yadav, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants advanced oral arguments and written synopsis are also submitted on behalf of the appellants. Sh. Yadav stated that the appellants were owners of other lands which were acquired vide Awards no 245/86- 87 and 20/85-86 pertaining to Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi for planned development of Delhi in year 1985, 1986 and 1987 and thereafter, the government started the allotment and auction of residential and commercial lands but some of the land was left out from acquisition which is subject matter of present appeal. It was further stated that surrounding areas of acquired land got fully developed prior to year

2004. The appellants relied on lease deed executed by DDA for allotment of residential plots and auction of commercial lands subject matter of Award bearing nos. 20/85-86 and 245/86-87 prior to the LA.APP 265/2024 Page 20 acquisition of land subject matter of present appeal and were proved by summoning relevant record from DDA. Sh. Yadav referred para no 7 and 11 of the affidavit tendered by PW[1] in evidence and testimonies of PW[2], PW[3] and their cross examination. Sh. Yadav argued that the land of the appellants subject matter of the present appeal has attained same market value as attained by the land developed by DDA. 8.1Sh. Yadav also relied on Award no 5/2003-2004 pertaining to Village Mangolpur Khurd which touches boundary of the Village Pooth Kalan in south-east direction. Sh. Yadav argued that Village Mangolpur Khurd has already been declared as urbanized in 1982 and subsequently developed in the Rohini Residential Scheme-I by DDA and as such rates of agriculture land fixed by the government of Delhi and as claimed by DDA cannot be applicable. The market value of the land was assessed @ Rs. 3,180 per square meter. Sh. Yadav during arguments also referred Balwant Singh v UOI, LA Appeal no 62/2013 decided on 11.01.2016 by High Court of Delhi. 8.[2] Sh. Yadav further argued that the acquired land was also abutted on 80 meter road of Rohini sector 23 which was developed prior to LA.APP 265/2024 Page 21 the acquisition of land and all modern facilities are available prior to acquisition of land and as such land subject matter of present appeal be treated as urban semi developed land and is having geographical advantage. Sh. Yadav argued that the appellants be awarded compensation on basis of scheduled market rate issued by Ministry of Urban Affairs and Development, Government of India for adjoining village Mangolpur Khurd i.e. Rs. 3180/- per square meter in year 1997 in terms of Award no 05/2003-2004 and 20% increase on Rs. 3180/- which is scheduled market rate issued by Ministry of Urban Affairs and Development, Government of India. Sh. Yadav advanced formula for calculation of compensation which is Rs. 3180/- + 20%=3180+636=3816 per square meter as on 27.08.1997 as per Balwant Singh and further increase at 11.5% from 27.08.1997 to 04.06.2004= 2246 days which comes to Rs. 2700/- and total comes to Rs. 6516 per square meter. Sh. Yadav prayed accordingly. Sh. Yadav during arguments relied on Narender & others V State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (2017) 9 SCC 426, Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot & others V State of Punjab and others, (2012) 5 SCC 432, Udho Dass V State of Haryana & others, LA.APP 265/2024 Page 22 (2010) 12 SCC 51, National Fertilizers Limited V Jagga Singh (Deceased) through LRs & another, (2012) 1 SCC 74, DDA V KapilMehra, (2015) 2 SCC 289 and various other decisions.

9. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, the Standing Counsel for the respondent no 1/UOI argued that PW[1] Surender Singh has admitted that there was no government hospital or college near the acquired land and 112 flats as mentioned in affidavit are 2 ½ Km from the acquired land and village Hiran Kudna is about 7 km away from village Pooth Kalan. PW[2] also admitted that lands surrounding the acquired land were developed by DDA after acquisition. He also stated that the appellants before the reference court relied on lease deed issued by DDA prior to acquisition of land in question to prove that the surrounding land was fully developed by DDA prior to acquisition. The appellants also relied on the Award no 05/2003-2004 of Village Mamgolpur Khurd which is situated about 2 ½ km from the acquired land and sale deed dated 20.08.2000 Ex. PW1/2 in respect of land which is situated about 7 Km away from Village Pooth Kalan. Sh. Pathak argued that the reference court rightly rejected exemplars/evidence relied on by the appellants as they are happened LA.APP 265/2024 Page 23 to be instances of allotment or creation of a perpetual lease by the Government for specific purpose and these exemplars cannot be compared with the sale of an undeveloped or underdeveloped agricultural land acquired for public purpose which requires lot of development and incurring of high development charges. He further argued that allotment for creation of freehold right cannot be treated as an instance of absolute sale and as such cannot be compared to market value of the land in case of agricultural land acquisition by the Government. Sh. Pathak relied on Lal Chand V UOI & another, (2009)15 SCC 769. 9.[1] Sh. Pathak stated that the appellants before reference court also relied on Award no 5/2003-2004 Ex. PW3/3 pertaining to Village Mangolpur Khurd which was urbanized in year 1982 and land measuring 02 bigha 03 biswa was only acquired vide Award NO. 5/2003-2004 for specific purpose i.e., for construction of 112 LIG houses in Pocket A, Sector II, Rohini, Phase-1, Delhi but in present case land was acquired for purpose Rohini Residential Scheme, Phase-III under Planned Development of Delhi and not to construct flats. Sh. Pathak argued that PW[1] in cross examination admitted that LA.APP 265/2024 Page 24 112 flats are 2 ½ km away from acquired land and after referring Lal Chand further argued that a distance of about 1 km may not make a difference for purposes of market value in a rural village but in urban properties like in Delhi even a distance of 50 meters may make a huge difference in market value. Sh. Pathak also referred cross examination of PW[1] wherein he admitted that no crop was being cultivated on acquired land for last number of years and he did not take any step to develop acquired land. Sh. Pathak argued that that the appellants did not produce any document or evidence that the acquired land was ever converted into residential/commercial land till date of acquisition and the reference court rightly rejected to determine market value of acquired land on basis of market value determined by LAC in Award no 5/2003-2004 pertaining to Village Mangolpur Khurd. 9.[2] Sh. Pathak further argued that the reference court rightly held that in absence of any other evidence with regard to calculate fair market value of the land, the Indicative Price Policy is the best evidence available to calculate fair market value of the land. However, Sh. Pathak further argued that the reference court without considering LA.APP 265/2024 Page 25 that whether there was increase in the price of the land during relevant period has enhanced market value by applying increase in price at the rate of 11.5% per annum (cumulatively) on minimum index price of Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre and wrongly granted an annual cumulative increase of 11.5% for 3 years and 65 days and also countered claim of the appellants for cumulative increase at the rate of 15%. Sh. Pathak argued that the reference court wrongly granted enhancement of Rs. 6,50,000/- per acre over and above the compensation assessed by LAC and same is liable to be modified. Sh. Pathak further argued that reliance of the appellants on Balwant Singh V UOI & another, LA appeal no 62/2013 decided on 11.01.2016 is misplaced as this case pertains to land situated in Village Chhattarpur in South District which was much more developed land in comparison of land subject matter of present appeal. 9.[3] Sh. Pathak ultimately argued that prices of small plots of land cannot be basis of evaluating the market value of larger tracts of land and even adjoining land of same village cannot fetch same market value due to difference in potentiality and quality. It further argued LA.APP 265/2024 Page 26 that comparison with land situated in neighboring village may not be safe criteria in absence of evidence of two sets of land being comparable possessing same quality, location and potentiality. Sh. Pathak argued that no ground for enhancement of compensation is made out and LAC has granted just and reasonable compensation after taking into consideration all the relevant factors including location of land, potentiality and other relevant factors and assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 15,70,000/- per acre based on indicative price. Sh. Pathak in last argued that the reference court should not have granted enhancement@ 11.5% per annum as cumulative increase per year for 03 years and 65 days. Sh. Pathak stated that present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10. Section 23 of the Act provides statutory provisions regarding determination of compensation for acquisition for land acquired for public purpose and section 24 of the Act also laid down the factors which are not to be considered for the purpose of determining the compensation. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act read as under:-

23. Matters to be considered on determining compensation.-(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration LA.APP 265/2024 Page 27 first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section (1)]; secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of serving such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change, and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land. [(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the LA.APP 265/2024 Page 28 award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation. - In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.] (2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation. - But the Court shall not take into consideration – first, the degree of urgency which has led to the acquisition; secondly, any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land acquired; thirdly, any damage sustained by him which, if caused by a private person, would not render such person liable to a suit; fourthly, any damage which is likely to be caused to the land acquired, after the date of the publication of the declaration under section 6, by or in consequence of the use to which it will be put; fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired; sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired will be put; LA.APP 265/2024 Page 29 seventhly, any outlay or improvements on, or disposal of the land acquired, commenced, made or effected without the sanction of the Collector after the date of the publication of the [notification under section 4, sub-section (1); [or] [eighthly, any increase to the value of the land on account of its being put to any use, which is forbidden by law or opposed to public policy.] 10.[1] The Supreme Court in Narendra & others V State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (2017) 9 SCC 426 after following Ashok Kumar V State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 544 observed that it is duty of the court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of claim made by the landowner and there is no cap on the maximum rate of compensation that can be awarded by the court and the courts are not restricted to awarding only that amount that has been claimed by the landowners/applicants in their application before it. 10.[2] The Supreme Court also in Major General Kapil Mehra & others V Union of India & another, (2015) 2 SCC 262 observed as under:-

10. Market Value LA.APP 265/2024 Page 30 First question that emerges is what would be the reasonable market value which the acquired lands are capable of fetching. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to keep in mind the following factors:-

(i) existing geographical situation of the land;